Polaroid licensee sues GoPro over cube-shaped Session action camera

C&A Marketing, a Polaroid licensee that makes the Cube action cameras, has sued GoPro over its newly introduced Hero4 Session camera. The new GoPro model is cube-shaped and resembles Polaroid's own Cube and Cube+ action camera models, allegedly infringing upon C&A's design patent. The lawsuit was filed today in U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey.

The Polaroid Cube has been on the market for about a year, while the GoPro Hero4 Session camera has only been on the market a few months. The cameras are unmistakably similar in design, each with a cube-shaped body, a single control button on the top and a lens on the front.

GoPro holds European Union design patents for the Session, as well as a US patent for a cube-shaped camera case. The company applied for a patent on the Session's design last year on January 6th, which it is still waiting for. One day prior on January 5th 2014, C&A Marketing filed for its patent. The company is suing for all profits made on the Session, in addition to cessation of that camera's sales.

This type of patents are complete joke! The problem is all created by the governing body thought! Polaroid didn't invent cube shape and apple didn't invent retangular sharp! End of! Stop these nonsenses!What's next? China & Egypt patent all their inventions? Pi, gun powder, arch bridges, compass........Pathetic!Polaroid would have a point if you pick up a GoPro and mistake it as a Polaroid. But I don't see how that's possible! Complete joke!

I am not trying to justify Polaroid's lawsuit action, but it is not just a cube shape, they are strikingly similar in size and layout as well.I can understand that patenting a cube shaped little camera sounds ridiculous, but what if that was the whole point of such product's existence?I mean.. if you produce a product in hope of attracting consumers by uniqueness of design, just to get your thunder stolen.. that really sucks..As a result, I am sure Polaroid is getting a sizable damage in profit.

What if? That doesn't mean a square should be patentable. As far as "layout" goes... what other options are there? It's a tiny cube. It's not as if there are copious options for placing a button on it.

It's time to take a step further - I would patent square shape in general. That would allow me to sue both Polaroid and GoPro; both would be subjected to 6 lawsuits, one for each wall of the cube.Let's not forget about the patent I have for red color (in general).

HISTORY LESSON: A box? Really? Kodak couldn't keep Fotomat from using their color yellow and font in court. Well, no love lost here in Massachusetts where Polaroid did a scale model Enron with their retirees; screwed them and the local economies due to their own greed and hubris. Polaroid was at one time in a better place during the late '80s and early '90s to make the digital transition. Instead the oligarchical corporate frame work left in place by Ed Land saw it differently. All the brilliant engineers, physicists, chemists and photo scientists left in droves like rats from a sinking ship. Polaroids' answer was to close up shop and leave vested employees with nothing. Hope the group that owns their licensed name loses this case. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4653316

At one time the Polaroid brand meant something and was a very innovative company. For a ggd while I would say they were the most technically sophisticated camera on the market, Crap like this suit, makes me wish Polaroid had never licensed their Name. The new company hasn't shown any sign or inkling of the creativity of the original company that bore the name Polaroid. So I guess they've resorted to filing frivolous law suits to try and prop up their bottom line.

SMH at C&A Marketing for going after GoPro because their camera is a cubical in shape, has a lens in the front and one control button on top. Maybe P.A.R.C. should've gone after Apple for patent infringement on the single button mouse.

People keep referring to this company as Polaroid, it is NOT Polaroid. They just paid a licensing fee to use the brand name. Put the blame where it belongs, C&A Marketing and NOT Polaroid..

I don't actually agree that this is "not Polaroid". If Polaroid collects a licensing fee for use of the name, it can expect to be involved - in the minds of the public - when the behaviour of the licensee is in question. If a product carrying the Polaroid name is good, the Polaroid name benefits. If it's bad, the reputation suffers, regardless of who it is who is using the name on their product. Same applies here - the brand name suffers, regardless of whose name is on the paperwork.

Hasselblad should sue Polaroid and GoPro then. Cube shape with a lens on the front is not new. Patent the shape of a camera, an awkward one at that? One button cameras are not unique. Now we know how Polaroid is going to make any money. Patent pirate.

This would be a valid argument if Polaroid was the market leader and some other small company copied it's design to try to fool people into thinking they are getting an equally good product. That's why design patents exist.

However, in this case it appears that Polaroid are simply going for a cash grab instead of riding on the coat tails of Gopro and bettering their product.

The business leaders at Polaroid should realize that imitation is the best form of flattery.

As I understand it Polaroid went out of business. Some businessman bought the right to license the name. The Polaroid Cube is a cheap rip off of the GoPro by one of those licensees. This is like someone patenting a flat rectangular shape for a phone and then suing everyone for patent infringment.

The basis of your argument is incorrect. Design patents exist exactly for this reason. It the criteria you suggested determined whether or not a patent is being infringed then companies like Samsung for example would be able to copy anything they wanted from any other smartphone manufacturer and get away with it. See a great new design by an unknown brand and just copy it before they get too big thus killing competition.

My first camera, a Kodak Brownie (not sure it was called a brownie) that I think used 127 film, was basically a cube or square box. It was given to me in 1958. So I don't think there is any particular innovation in designing a cube shaped camera. Seems like they can protect the trade name "Polaroid." But a "cube" shaped camera? What would Rubic have to say about that!

it's not as simple as patenting a shape, it's also the function tied to that shape, but yes you can patent a cube toilet paper roll, or a cylindrical mobile phone and if Apple was to copy your design you could, and rightfully so, sue them, after all you thought of a cylindrical phone first.

The Polaroid of the SX70 went bust a long time back. The name and IP was sold to another company which kept making Polaroid cameras until 2007. They went bust around 2008 and yet another company bought the name, and licences companies (I think mostly Chinese) to use it for their products.

They are a special class of patent for the "look" of a functional object, they are what a lot of the rest of the World calls a "registered design". In both cases it's to stop people making knock-offs of your product and using your design/marketing efforts. They do look pretty similar so I think they are in a with a shot here.

patent stuff is fuzzy in general... while you do have a point, and while my first post was in jest, there should be reasonable limits...

Yes, it makes sense to patent an advanced aerodynamic form for an airplane or car... but "patent for a cube camera" or patent for "rounded corners for a smartphone" ... are just things that should be ruled as invalid.

You're not a Patent Troll if you are selling a product and someone makes a copy of it. (Patent Trolls buy patents but don't make products with them, just bill people.) Although this sounds more like an issue of design copyright than patents anyway... Ah, in the US a "Design Patent" is like a "Registered Design" in many other countries...

I read the article again. I assumed Polaroid gave its blessing on this action, as the name Polaroid was going to be dragged in this.I used the troll term very loosely. Sorry.There should be a term for frivolous patents cry baby.

I think it's 20 years in the US. It used to be 17 years back in mid 1980s. Negotiations must have failed. Now that the issue is in court, we are looking at a minimum cost of $1 million. Lawyers must be very happy.If Apple against Samsung can win the rounded edges patent (which is ridiculous), I think C&A Marketing has a good legal case.Most likely this will be settled out of court.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Hasselblad X1D-50c is a mirrorless medium format camera from one of the most famous camera brands of the 20th century. Following a series of feature-enhancing firmware updates we've been able to complete our review.

The LG G7 ThinQ is a flagship device with a dual camera that departs from the norm: rather than the usual tele/wide combo, it offers wide and super-wide angle lenses. While it doesn't produce class-leading image quality, it's a solid option if you favor wide-angle shooting.

The Fujifilm X-T100 is the company's least expensive X-series camera to include an electronic viewfinder. It shares most of its guts with the entry-level X-A5, including its hybrid AF system and 24MP sensor and, unfortunately, its 4K/15p video mode.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at seven current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for a parent? The best cameras for shooting kids and family must have fast autofocus, good low-light image quality and great video. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for parents, and recommended the best.

What's the best camera for shooting landscapes? High resolution, weather-sealed bodies and wide dynamic range are all important. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting landscapes, and recommended the best.

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

Alex and Kathryn are photographers, friends and Tokyo residents who love exploring Japan's hidden cultural treasures. They each brought a Canon EOS M50 on a recent trip starting in bustling Tokyo and ending in the peaceful riverside town of Gujo Hachiman.

Canon's latest 70-200mm F4L comes with a five stops of image stabilization, a new coat of paint and impressive sharpness. We've been shooting with our copy for several weeks now - see how it stacks up in our sample gallery.

Special 4K and 6K Photo modes may be one of the most under-appreciated features on recent cameras. In this week's episode, Chris and Jordan take a closer look at these modes and explain why – and when – you'll be glad to have them on your camera.

Ten years ago this month Panasonic and Olympus announced a new concept called Micro Four Thirds. We're now on the brink of full-frame mirrorless from at least one major player, so perhaps it's a good time to take a look back at where it all started – and how far we've come.

At a high-profile launch event in New York, Samsung took the wraps off its next Note device. The Galaxy Note 9 borrows the S9+'s 12MP dual-aperture dual-cam, with OIS in both cameras and an emphasis on AI-enhanced shooting modes.

One of the most keenly-awaited lenses for a while, the new Pentax D FA* 50mm F1.4 is finally here, and we've been using it for a few days. In this article, we're updating our initial impressions on the basis of our recent shooting with the K-1 II.

This week we take a look at one of the most unusual optics we've seen for quite a while. The Laowa 24mm F14 Macro Probe lens may look like something out of a science fiction movie, but as Chris and Jordan discover, it opens the door to some pretty cool photo opportunities.

GoPro has revealed its Q2 2018 financial results, boasting a massive 40% quarter-over-quarter revenue increase to $283 million and net loss of $32 million, which the company says is a 51% sequential improvement.